Bryn Mawr College

Admissions Express

Customize your experience with quick links to recommended content.

MSCHE website
MSCHE standards for accreditation
MSCHE publication: Assessing Student Learning and Institutional Effectiveness: Understanding Middle States Expectations
A Commissioner's perspective on self-study. An informal "Top 10" list for institutions, delivered by MSCHE Commissioner Dr. Gary Wirt at the Nov 2007 self-study workshop
Bryn Mawr self-study design document Contains working group structure (pp. 18-27), timeline (p. 30), report format guidelines (pp. 28-9)
1998-1999 Bryn Mawr Self-Study document. Note: the MSCHE standards were heavily revised in 2005, particularly in areas related to assessment.
2003-2004 Periodic review report The 5-year "interim" report to Middle States between full decennial reaccrediation self-studies.

Willa Seldon, Trustee
Nell Anderson, Co-Director, Civic Engagement Office and Director of Praxis and Community Partnership Programs, liaison to working group on student services
Victor Donnay, Professor of Mathematics, liaison to working group on undergraduate curriculum
Mark Freeman, Director of Institutional Research (Chair), liaison to working group on governance
Madge Rothenberg, Director, Foundation and Corporate Relations, liaison to working group on gradaute education
Stephen Salkever, Professor of Political Science, liaison to working group on undergraduate curriculum

2. Assessment working group charge questions (from the self-study design document):

What are some important examples of assessment of institutional effectiveness that have informed decisions regarding institutional improvement and/or resource allocation? How do our successes and challenges in this area inform our future approaches to assessment of institutional effectiveness?
What are some important examples of assessment of student learning that have led to appropriate decisions about teaching, planning, and resource allocation? How do our successes and challenges in this area inform our future approaches to assessment?
Are our key learning goals/outcomes for students coherent, clearly articulated, and understood by relevant constituencies across various levels of the curriculum (course, department, institutional, general education, co-curricular programs)? How adequate are our efforts to encourage, support, and value efforts to assess these learning outcomes at these various levels? How will we promote a more widespread culture of evidence concerning our claims about student learning?
Bryn Mawr invests considerable resources in the collection of quantitative data from its students and alums. In what ways are we using these data effectively? In what ways might we expand our use of data to address important questions regarding institutional effectiveness and student learning goals?

3. Meeting schedule

4. Assessment working group time line, Spring 2009

Date	Work plan
March 19	Mark will prepare skeletal outline of assessment working group report in advance of the meeting for review.
April 2	Mark will revise outline and begin to flesh out selected sections of the working group report in advance of the meeting for review and discussion.
April 16	Reviewing drafts
April 30	Reviewing drafts
May 14	Last working group meeting: Final comments on draft.
May 31	Assessment working group submits report to Middle States steering committee.
Summer 2009	Mark Freeman revises draft of Assessment working group report, finishes gathering and assembling reference materials. Revisions in consultation with self-study chairs and with Assessment working group committee members (as available).
Fall 2008	Final self-study document submitted to Middle States.

5. Assessment working group report parameters: